Sunday, October 04, 2009

Hey Joan, Your House is Glass

But the issue is also the Internet's ability to give cover to critics who don't have to do what Carr does - own their opinions. The blogosphere opened up the public conversation to new, thoughtful voices, but it should not provide a shield to hide biases and private agendas.

1) What about a newspaper's ability to give cover to critics who don't have to do what Carr does, either? How many stories are founded on the basis of anonymous sources who have their own, personal agendas. Let us not forget it was anonymous sources lying that got this country into a war that's killed thousands of Americans and who knows how many tens of thousands of Iraqis -- the chief media cheerleader being the Globe's parent company. Don't make me list the number of horrible articles, with no evidence but those anonymous sources (complete with agenda), which have been printed on the front page of your own Globe. Joan, your house is glass.

2) Are you really going to bring up media shield protections? Why on Earth should print media and TV get shield law protection and not the blogosphere? Joan's phrasing of this paragraph is really interesting, especially given how important an issue shield laws are right now with the Senate bill which would create shield law protections for tv and print news, but not the blogosphere.

Joan, we know you're reading this. These are two subjects you need to answer if you want to remain a credible opinion journalist. This isn't about "Ernie" and this isn't about Howie Carr -- this is about you sticking up for the status quo. Admit it.

7 comments:

Isn't it curious in a discussion about anonymous posters that an anonymous poster posts such an uninformed comment that wholly misses the point?

The discussion on BMG has been informative and worthwhile to read various perspectives.

You raised the issue of the failure of media to do its job prior to the Iraq War causing the loss of lives on both sides.

If you recall, anyone who attempted to challenge the march to war was labeled "unpatriotic" and villified on FAUX News with some outrageous accusations.

MSM has mostly turned into willing sheep, embracing and repeating some outlandish tales without even the sense to recognize their foolishness. In fairness, there are some journalists who do their work and exceed the highest standards of the profession, but not nearly enough.

As you know, the predatory gambling issue is a prime example, although it hasn't gotten us into a costly war that has caused the deaths of far too many innocents.

You will find very little reporting that addresses the cost, impacts, economic downside or the human devastation caused by gambling. In other words, you will find little balanced reporting beginning with the casino shills at SHNS.

How pathetic is it that we so willingly surrendered that most important freedom that set us apart from other nations without so much as a whimper?

Nope, I'm not a journalist, I'm just a guy who would like to purchase better newspapers than the ones currently being sold, in large part due to the hypocrisy in which the media exists. To criticize "anonymous" bloggers with "agendas" when the MSM uses anonymous sources with agendas EVERY DAY is an absurd level of hypocrisy.

Anon,

Where did I ever claim to be a journalist? I'm an activist and writer, sure, but not a reporter. Neither am I a "hack" blogger: My agenda is clear. I care about Massachusetts, including its media, and think it should go into a certain (read: progressive) direction. My name is out there and I've never shied away from the issues I care about or the agenda I pursue.

The same cannot be said for the anonymous sources papers like the Globe use every day, frequently for stories that are not important and are typically meant as smear campaigns started by those anon sources, with ulterior motives. While the MSM should be highly reluctant to ever use anonymous sources, at the very least they shouldn't be publishing hypocritical articles about that topic in regards to bloggers at BMG.

Ryan is not a journalist but never claimed to be. He's one of progessive elitists who hope to press their agenda to take my hard earned money through higher taxes and pass that on to causes they deem worthy. But's he's actually been more honest about it than most of the main stream media who purport to report the news. You have to watch a split screen TV nowadays with Fox and NBC to have any hope of actually following the news.

Well, Anon 5:01... I think there was a compliment in there somewhere, thanks ;)

On a more serious note, I don't want to take your hard-earned dollars and give it to 'causes.' I want to make America's hard-earned dollars do more for us (including you).

Case in point: health care. The private, employee-based system we have in this country has proven to be prohibitively expensive, without yielding above-average results (indeed, the results are below average for developed countries). Meanwhile, it leaves 45 million Americans uninsured and another 100 million under insured. We all pay how many thousands a year toward health insurance? It's a giant portion of our paycheck. At the end of the day, what does it matter if we pay that money toward Blue Cross or the federal government, so long as we a) get good care and b) do so efficiently? If it would cost 15-20% less to get better care through a public option or single payer, it only makes sense to jump for that.

You could say that's 'giving money to causes,' or spending money as efficiently as possible and making it work the best for us. We should be doing whatever makes the most policy sense when it comes to fundamental needs in society -- health care, education, transportation, national defense, public safety, etc.

It was a complimentary assesment, generally we always know where you're coming from. The problem I perceive is a general drift away from personal responsibility toward the idea that government can solve all of our problems. When government takes over it never lets its tenacles unleash. Social Security, great, WORKERS pay in then have a forced savings program to help them when they are old( then gov starts to give the money away to people who never contributed). People signed mortgages for houses they couldn't afford, let's bail them out. The Big Dig, great idea but no oversight. There will always be poor people, there should be. Sure sometimes bad things happen to good people and it may seem cruel but that's what charities are for. Most people are in the situation they're in because they didn't plan or work hard enough or educate themselves. The government can't ( or shouldn't) be called on to fix everything. Eventually I will wind up paying more than my fair share because crack addicts, or obese couch potatoes will use up the finite amount of medical care in this country. We need to think outside the box. Here's an example. Rescind the helmet law with the provision that a biker signs a waiver stating if he gets hurt the state can pull the plug on his comatose body. We won't wind up paying long term care for him and we'll get some needed organ donations. Win Win.

About Ryan's Take

Subscribe To

Note to Readers:

All words on this blog are mine and mine alone, save anything quoted. My posts should not be considered reflective of any other group, person or organization. They represent my thoughts at the time I posted them, and that's it.